Fascist America In 10 Easy Steps

And? I've already stated on many occasions that elite democrats aren't any better than elite republicans.

 

George W. Bush Is Not a Christian - Uncovering the Real Power Behind the US President

By Robert Guffey

So one day Jesus Christ (Our Lord and Saviour) and Leo Strauss stroll into the Oval Office…. It could be the beginning of a joke. Instead it represents the beginning of the systematic massacre of the First Amendment, the rollback of civil rights, and the violent rape of the high ideals of the signers of the U.S. Constitution. Blues.

We all know Jesus Christ (if not personally, then by reputation), but much fewer of you know the name Leo Strauss. Strauss’s influence on recent United States foreign policy is slowly coming to light. A number of neoconservatives, who have been molding U.S. foreign policy since 2001 to apocalyptic effect, are either former students of Strauss or devotees of his philosophy. Foremost among these “neocons” are Paul Wolfowitz, the President of the World Bank and the former Deputy Secretary of Defense, Richard Perle, former Chairman of George W. Bush’s Defense Policy Board, Vice-President Dick Cheney, Irving Kristol, who popularised the term “Neoconservative” in his 1983 book Reflections of a Neoconservative, and Irving’s son William, founder of the influential think tank Project for a New American Century.
During a recent interview on CNN, Alexander Haig, the former Secretary of State for the Reagan administration, accused the neocons of having “hijacked” the Republican Party. Of the Iraq War he said, “This is a conflict that’s essentially political. It’s not just purely military. It’s political and religious and ideological. And it was driven by the so-called neocons that hijacked my party, the Republican Party.”1 The “hijackers” Haig named specifically were Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Pearle. These three men have in common an adherence to the teachings of Leo Strauss.
When discussing Strauss’s influence on their way of thinking, the neocons inexplicably revert to a kind of rhapsodic enthusiasm, near-orgasmic joy rarely seen in their writing even when they’re speaking of subjects close to their heart, like killing thousands of innocent people in the Middle East. Irving Kristol writes, “Encountering Strauss’s work produced the kind of intellectual shock that is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. He turned one’s intellectual universe upside down.”2 Kristol elaborates:

In the United States… the writings of Leo Strauss have been extraordinarily influential. Strauss’ critique of the destructive elements within modern liberalism, an analysis that was popularised by his students… has altered the very tone of public discourse in the United States…. To bring contemporary liberalism into disrepute… is no small achievement.3

Strauss’s central beliefs are crucial to understand if one wishes to penetrate to the heartmeat core of the neocon’s duplicitous policies. Essentially, Strauss believed the vast majority of the human race was so unequipped to handle the disturbing truths of the universe that they needed to be spoonfed pretty lies in order to endure their inferior existences. On the other hand, what he called “the philosophers” (i.e., Strauss and his academic cronies) represent that rare breed of individual who can face the truth “that there is no God, that the universe cares nothing for men or mankind, and that all of human history is nothing more than an insignificant speck in the cosmos, which no sooner began, than it will vanish forever without a trace. There is no morality, no good or evil…”4
According to Strauss these philosophers must feed the ignorant with the “religious, moral and other beliefs they require” in order to survive. But they do this not out of benevolence. No, Strauss is clear on this point: the duty of the “philosopher” is to use his superior intellect to manufacture falsehoods “to shape society in the interest of [the] ‘philosophers’ themselves.”5 This is the only route to take, Strauss believed, if truth was to survive.
Irving Kristol comments on this facet of Strauss’s philosophy:

What made him so controversial with the academic community was his disbelief in the Enlightenment dogma that ‘the truth will make men free’. He was an intellectual aristocrat who thought that the truth could make some minds free, but he was convinced that there was an inherent conflict between philosophic truth and the political order, and that the popularisation and vulgarisation of these truths might import unease, turmoil and the release of popular passions hitherto held in check by tradition and religion.6

Allow me to translate. What Kristol is really saying is this: “If us rulers were to openly admit to the masses, ‘You’re all a bunch of sheep and you’re here to serve us, because we’re better than you, so kiss my butt,’ the masses might get a bit riled by such a comment and actually rise up and hang all of us assholes from lampposts.” Needless to say, the neocons don’t wish this to happen. In order to prevent it, therefore, dissimulation is absolutely necessary.
Strauss believed the philosopher must write his books in such a dense, esoteric style that its true secrets would be clear only to the initiated. Since the truth is so dangerous, it can’t be put in the hands of the naïve and the profane. The style of the book must be doubly-coded in such a way that the few novices who even attempt to understand it would merely come away from the book shaking his head in bewilderment and bored dismay. As Strauss himself once wrote, in a rare and paradoxical moment of clarity, “[A]n author who wishes to address only thoughtful men has but to write in such a way that only a very careful reader can detect the meaning of his book.”7
Strauss believed government policies should be designed in this manner. Just as Strauss’s texts were doubly-coded, the executive branch must operate in a similarly kabbalistic fashion if it is to do what is necessary for the stability of political life. While the masses are treated to the amusing and mundane caperings of an exoteric dog-and-pony show, beneath the surface operates the esoteric centres of power: the philosophers themselves. These “wise men” represent government’s esoteric underside. The exoteric side, meanwhile, is represented by what he called “the gentlemen.”

…the philosophers require various sorts of people to serve them, including the ‘gentlemen’…. Rather than the ‘esoteric,’ or secret teachings, the future ‘gentlemen’ are indoctrinated in the ‘exoteric,’ or public teachings. They are taught to believe in religion, morality, patriotism, and public service, and some go into government…. Of course, along with these traditional virtues, they also believe in the ‘philosophers’ who have taught them all these good things.
Those ‘gentlemen’ who become statesmen… continue to take the advice of the philosophers. This rule of the philosophers through their front-men in government, is what Strauss calls ‘the secret kingdom’ of the philosophers, a ‘secret kingdom’ which is the life’s objective of many of Strauss’s esoteric students. [snip]

(Original link now dead.)

 

You actually have font=Verdana]some[/font] valid points which is why Al Gore and the socialist are out to cripple the public voice.


Question: Nursey does this conversation between Keith and Al bother you? Do you think Keith is a gullible idiot being played as a tool to the cause, or rather a willing participant?

 

The only thing that bothers me is you derailing the topic. So, have you investigated the works of Leo Strauss, Joe? Are they in accordance with your own views? Or don't you know?

 

Shame on you Joe. Derailing the topic before Tommy and Dwaine Scum could even read it. You know how much they and everyone else like to dig into Nursey's huge copy and pastes from nutjob ....errrr highly respected think tanks.

 

I'll tell you what I think about the theatrical ah I mean the article. Or did I?

Ok it is a very opinionated opinion piece. I'm not very sure I can place any confidence in the article's writer.

However I one the other hand simply posted a video of Keith Olberman interviewing Albert Gore. Nothing biased there as far as agreeing or disagreeing with any person's second hand opinion. Simply put I'm asking weather or not you find that specific interview alarming. And if you are paying attention what specifically are they both advocating should be done?

As for Bush I'm not totally naive and blind with acceptance. Why in hell Bush does not do as Reagan did and commandeer the televised media during prime time to use his position at the bully pulpit and drive home the truth is beyond my comprehension. He has the right to make presidential addresses you know and go on the offense. He has allowed the public to actually believe that Scooter Libby committed a crime and neglected to expose treason by a prosecutor gone way out of control.

I would have pardoned 100 percent and then followed with charges against both Joe Wilson as well as Valery Plame. They both lied during questioning to the CIA, to the 911 commission, as well as lied during the Scooter Libby sham of a trial. These are all irrefutable lies.

Imminent Domain? I'll never figure that one out. I try to imagine there could be some ulterior motive to circumvent the liberal courts from blocking the ability of the government to fight the war on terror. Like I said I cannot figure that one out and the damage as I see it to liberty is huge.

But the Whole “neocon” and “orgasmic joy at seeing people die” crap is just that crap.

Until all your conspiracy web pages decide to take notice that the biggest real and legitimate lie to the American people. The true conspiracy that took place was when Joe Wilson lied about Yellow cake uranium. Then once the bait was set knowing that a huge gargantuan lie was imposed upon the American people waited knowingly daring anyone to step forward to set the record straight. Then when they could not get their man but instead got idiot blabbermouth Armistance. They still after knowing who the “leaker” was spent years and millions of dollars trying to get a “Big catch” you know what that is called? Entrapment that's what. So you have a liberal prosecutor claiming for years to investigate who leaked the name of Valery Plame whom which by the way was a perfectly legal thing to do. Why because quite simply she was not after all a covert agent as was implied. You have a prosecutor questioning for years White House officials as if there were still an investigation to “find the leaker” looking to do just what he did and that is to find conflicting stories after hours upon hours of interrogations spanning years of time. Since discrepancies were found in Scooter Libby's recollection of events he was charged with lying to a grand jury. Take a poll of American citizens now as well as ten then 20 then 30 then 40 more years from now. Ask then to state in the most simple terms what happened in the Valery Plame / Scooter Libby case. Look at the difference between truth verses reality. There Nursey is your conspiracy. But then again I think you are fully aware of what is going on you are right there with all the rest of the Communist protagonist and the method and means to the end is of no real concern to you. If it involves lies and miles of rehashed cut and paste text from socialist web pages then fine. Whatever works, truth be damned.

You're web pages will not acknowledge the 8000 pound captain conspiracy flailing his arms seeking attention in their face.

So tell me why I should give any weight what so ever to your cut and paste logic.

 

No cut and paste my own words I dare you to debate IN YOU'RE OWN WORDS.

And how has the weather been in the UK for this past week? Has it been warm?

Did you ever find out what happened in Watergate?

What was Scooter Libby charged with?

Was outing Valery Plame a crime?

If so why did Fitzgerald not charge Armistance?

Why did Fitzgerald not pull out of his investigation when he discovered there was no crime committed?

Why if there was no crime committed were the American...for that matter World public led to believe for years that there was.

If I have tea with Chinese delegates who tell me that they never ever sent troops to Vietnam to assist the communist fighters and the red army was a fable that never existed along with political prisons and Tienanmen square. Does that mean I can come back to the states and report my findings and we can then therefore change the historical record in light of new revelations? Would the savvy and ingenious manner of which I pried these new revelations from my unsuspecting Asian counterparts catapult me to uber-elite stratus of intellectual prowess? If the the world media marveled a the significantly historical and profoundly dire implications of the factual truth of which I uncovered mean that they to are uber-elite intellectuals?

If months later further evidence to backup this truth magically appear in the mountains of Tibet in the form of confessions written and co-written by Carl Marx, Joseph Stalin obviously fake because why the hell would they and it would not matter on top of the fact that they were obviously typed using Yahoo Messenger complete with emotions. Would these forgeries conclude once and for all that there was a conspiracy by Carl Rove to plant false confessionals that would have scary as it may sound successfully foiled the world had he not spelled the names right. And there for any logical person can reasonable conclude that the debate is over about the red army, Tienanmen square, as well as political prisons and Chinese in Vietnam.

If while being called upon by 911 commission I told stories of how I bravely forged through the jungles of Burma and located these confessionals all the while on the same diplomatic trip a month earlier by use of my time machine. Could this in any way be possibly construed as a lie? Or am I pushing the envelope here. And if indeed I were to be lying to the commission during such a time when our country were under attack and the lies aided and abetted our enemy. If this lie were damaging to the administration at a critical time during a very critical election. Then would it be reasonable to assume that I were purposefully lying and doing so in a manner to effect an election outcome? Could this be construed as treason? If my wife told three conflicting stories to investigators investigating a leak probe about weather or not she recommended me for the trip. Do you suppose all three stories could be different but true? Do you think maybe my wife was just a super elite intellect working as a triple agent for an agency so confidential they are only referred to using gutteral sounds that are un-duplicatable using mere text therefore I am unable. Do you suppose her uber-elite agent status requires her to work in three differing planes of exsistance all different except for one consistency in that all three planes are at risk of ending as we know it victim of a dynamic plot by Carl Rove and George Bush a veritable real life "Pinky and the Brain"?

 

Sorry, I've become something of a dick lately. Who is to say what is right anyway. I for one am not happy with the war. We could have gone in and kicked Sadaam's ass, taken out the top people and left in the middle eschelon. Also, leaving around huge stockpiles of weapons so they can blow up our guys is pretty stupid. Now they have us over a barrel and it is really Iran that we are fighting I believe by proxy and Iran is free to develop nukes because of the politics of it. If we had taken out the top and got out during the first gulf war or even the second. We could have set a precedent and scared the shit out of the Iranians. If not they could have got the same treatment. Take out the top and leave the rest. Whatever rose to the top would be too scared to put their asses on the line and cross us. All we really need to do is buy their oil and prevent them from blowing up the world. All the rest is bullshit.

 

Humanitarian aid could have gone through islamic charities or something.

 

I think this may be the most profound statement that Dan has ever had. All them years of schoolin' finally paid off!

 

No actually, the question was:

Judging by your response, i think the answer must be 'no'. In which case, you don't really know what you are supporting with this strange new breed of so-called 'Republican'.
Are they in accordance with your own views? Or don't you know?
[/quote]

 

Interesting points but I'm not sure about that. Historically, we've been able to wield economic sanctions or destruction to deter an enemy. Middle Eastern governments have money and Jihadists have a great zeal for dying for their cause. They don't scare easily.

 

'Jihadists'? Iraq was a secular Arab country until the Zionist neocons destroyed it.

 

I wasn't trying to pigeon-hole Iraqis exclusively. I meant that some have greater passion for their religion than politics. The motives and end-state on the side of the Jihadist are clearer. "Ending terror" is a pretty broad order.

 

Right, well anyway. There's plenty of threads that Joe and Michelle have started specifically about 'Jihadists'.

Have you read anything about Leo Strauss, Maj?

 

Not other than your earlier post. I'd never heard of him.

 

Strauss taught that liberalism in its modern form contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which in turn led to two types of nihilism ("Epilogue").[2] The first was a “brutal” nihilism, expressed in Nazi and Marxist regimes. These ideologies, both descendants of Enlightenment thought, tried to destroy all traditions, history, ethics and moral standards and replace it by force with a supreme authority from which nature and mankind are subjugated and conquered.[4] The second type — the "gentle" nihilism expressed in Western liberal democracies — was a kind of value-free aimlessness and hedonism, which he saw as permeating the fabric of contemporary American society.[5] In the belief that 20th century relativism, scientism, historicism, and nihilism were all implicated in the deterioration of modern society and philosophy, Strauss sought to uncover the philosophical pathways that had led to this situation. The resultant study led him to revive classical political philosophy as a source by which political action could be judged.[6]

So here we have it and I'm glad to once again point out what I have said before the Nazi movement was/is a socialist movement.

Also let is compare the Strauss analogy the Liberal power machines and ideals.

First of all the ACLU is the tool used by the democrats to consistently force upon the people far beyond what they would tolerate if they had any choice or say in the matter.

Then consider the previously noted Al Gore interview. See the thought control machine in action using government to force opinion into the ears of the people weather they want it or not at the same time punish public dissent. All wrapped up in a warm fuzzy package.

 

In "A Giving of Accounts", Leo expressed his concernt that people not believe people who used fictious names such as for instance Nursey. published in The College 22(1) and later reprinted in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, Strauss noted he had come from a "conservative, even orthodox Jewish home", but one in which there was little Jewish knowledge beyond a strict adherence to ceremonial laws. His father and uncle operated a farming supply and livestock business that they inherited from their father, Meyer (1835-1919), a prominent and outspoken leader of the Jewish community. Leo Strauss would dedicate his second book to his father.

 

Would Leo consider Hillary Rodham ... hold on she changed her name again didn't she? Hillary Clinton a populist?

Did not the Clinton political machine destroy Linda trip a scared lady trying to protect herself and an innocent adolescent girl for recording a phone conversation?

Smacks of the Elitist ideals of socialism does it not?

 

"joe".. rather than pointing out the hypocrisy in the throwing of an 'anonymous handle' card by someone who merely uses a very common christian name, purporting to be his own, as his display name, as well as only posting an alleged photo of himself after prodding the last time he threw the same card.

i will instead point out that this website (pre and post forum addition) has not always been the vanguard of love and support it has become (maybe since the arrival of a certain type of member.. perhaps i'll use BB for before and AB for after the site had new curtains up)..

BB the site was populated at times by people who got kicks from tracking people down for whatever reasons.. probably attracted by the innovative "victims" section that was once this sites most popular feature. back then anonymity was a necessity for those with families, barry can verify this.

besides.. as anyone who has gained nurseys trust can tell you. she has a vey very acute intuition, and once she has sensed that you have genuinely amicable intentions and are approaching openly without agenda or falsity, then she willingly drops all guards or barriers and shares herself freely..

that could be why you've never had a satisfactory reply to your multitude of plaintive PM's.. eh?

many people on here can attest to her openness. she has even in the past provided a retreat for someone from here who needed to take a break from his drudge and an escape from his pit of depression.


also i noticed the sly instance of thuggish wikivandalism .. i hadn't seen the original text unfortunately, but have edited the entry myself in an immature tit-for-tat.. hopefully he will be shamed enough to restore it to it's original form.. sadly it's people like him who ensure that wikipedia shall remain a flawed source for 'facts'. and why i support a full registrative system and the accompanying accountability.